Our father, who art a penguin,
Tux be thy name
Thy distro come,
Thy will be done on PCs as on Macs.
Give us this day our daily fish,
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive penguins who trespass against us.
And lead us not into other distros,
But deliver us from Ubuntu.
For thine is the distro, the penguin and the glory,
For ever and ever.

The Church of Gentoo worships the most holy scared penguin the Gentoo penguin.

Why would we worship a scared penguin? Why would a holy penguin be scared?

Maybe you mean sacred?

Quote:

There is no better distro than Gentoo, Funtoo, and LFS.

I thought that they were separate distributions. Are you trying to say that they are a trinity? I don't quite see how they share a single essence, nor how they are a single distribution. Besides, L.F.S. is not really a distribution, is it? The point of a distribution is to take certain G.N.U. packages, customize them, and release them together as a working system. L.F.S. just tells you how to install certain packages to make a minimal operating system. Gentoo is a metadistribution, and I honestly don't really know about Funtoo, though I've probably installed it once or twice just to try it.

Im convinced that there is no better distro than Gentoo or Funtoo. But i also consider BSD as great system. Im interested in learning more about BSD. On the other hand why to bother when i have excellently working Gentoo system._________________https://github.com/defer-

Im convinced that there is no better distro than Gentoo or Funtoo. But i also consider BSD as great system. Im interested in learning more about BSD. On the other hand why to bother when i have excellently working Gentoo system.

thats a question I've asked myself a lot. One reason is to learn more about UNIX and another interesting unixoid systems.

Then I've read in a few articles that the BSD's are technically superior to Linux. what does this mean? Does anyone know what the authors could have meant?

another reason is that maybe openBSD could be more secure than hardened gentoo ?

on the other hand there are the "FBI backdoors stories" and maybe because gentoo is a meta distribution it is less interesting for an agency trying to install backdoors?!

does anyone know what does "backdoors" are?

it seems that openBSD is more like a mathematical theory in the sense that it's very clean and proper and Linux (especially gentoo) is more like an organism that evolves.

I like the former, but maybe the latter is how the world works?_________________"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"

Last edited by LoTeK on Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:05 am; edited 1 time in total

In BSD the same team developes kernel and base system. I have understood that BSD code is generally very clean. One example is fragmentation of linux tools. We have ifconfig, iwconfig, iproute2, iw and wpa_supplicant when in BSD everything can be done with ifconfig.

OpenBSD would be very interesting OS for server use. It should be one of the most secure systems available. I would try it if i had a server ATM.

FreeBSDs ports "package manager" is similar to portage but i have understood portages use flag system is way easier for managing build options system wide._________________https://github.com/defer-

In BSD the same team developes kernel and base system. I have understood that BSD code is generally very clean. One example is fragmentation of linux tools. We have ifconfig, iwconfig, iproute2, iw and wpa_supplicant when in BSD everything can be done with ifconfig.

yes, that's pretty annoying! why do we have so many tools? why not focus on one?

defer- wrote:

OpenBSD would be very interesting OS for server use. It should be one of the most secure systems available. I would try it if i had a server ATM.

why only as a server system? for example debian (and gentoo?!) are good for servers and for desktops. I've tried openBSD lately and what was a bit strange is, that the X-server is included per default and it's recommended to use X. but on a server you don't use an X server, do you?

defer- wrote:

FreeBSDs ports "package manager" is similar to portage but i have understood portages use flag system is way easier for managing build options system wide.

as far as I know, our USE-flag system is the undisputed champion if you want to have maximal control over your system and on the same time a rather easy system to maintain -> useful for "normal work" in contrast to LFS.

But I've read that portage is broken (->paludis website, other linux forum)._________________"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"

Last edited by LoTeK on Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:05 am; edited 1 time in total

Despite being written in bleeding-edge C++, having a thorough test suite, and being around 5 years old, it's slower than portage by an order of magnitude, lags behind it in features, and still doesn't have a decent UI (for any value of "U" that isn't "a robot").

Paludis was written by a troll who got kicked out of gentoo for good reason. Guess how much worth his word is to me.

Or was he gone by his own will to accompanie exherbo?
Now, he is actually discussing on the dev mailing list now and then. And guess what: He often is the only guy to slow down cheap hackery by recurring to strict formalism.

I am using portage: But is slows down in performance by every release

Also:
Paludis is "slower than portage by an order of magnitude, lags behind it in features"
I wonder how much is that, because of the ever growing bash powered eclasses.

If you emerge linux-sources with an debug option set you will see the loops! And there are seds in the kernel eclass never found to fail (it doesn't catch caused by an additional blank in the source), because this is the nature of a sed line ... If I would be a Gentoo eclass developer at first I would introduce an obligatory sedfail.eclass with a grep line erroring out if not met._________________fun2gen2

But I've read that portage is broken (->paludis website, other linux forum).

Paludis was written by a troll who got kicked out of gentoo for good reason. Guess how much worth his word is to me.

ok, didn't know that.. but maybe there is even so some truth in those claims?

why is paludis slower than portage when it's written in C++? and why is C++ bad? shouldn't C be the language of choice for a package manager (-> pacman) or at least C++?

because if you write it in python you have additional dependencies.

ulenrich wrote:

And guess what: He often is the only guy to slow down cheap hackery by recurring to strict formalism.

we could discuss a long time about "hacks vs formalism". Obviously in an ideal world formalism would clearly win, but as I've learned even simple systems or even single algorithms/programs are mostly way to complex for a really strict formal approach. moreover to hack and code is way more fun than this dry reasoning, but even so the formal approach must have some value, because otherwise nobody would go this way.

According to the paludis website, portage is full of spagetti code. if this is true than it's indeed a problem, don't you agree?
especially since python is OO and more highlevel than C.

n00b question: why is it so hard to just rewrite something like portage in a clean way? -> to big? (I've never looked at portage's source code).

if you read about BSD vs Linux it's often mentioned that the Linux Kernel is just a collection of cheap hacks, while the BSD kernel is clean and beautiful. Can somebody say something objective about this?_________________"I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language!"

And guess what: He often is the only guy to slow down cheap hackery by recurring to strict formalism.

we could discuss a long time about "hacks vs formalism". Obviously in an ideal world formalism would clearly win, but as I've learned even simple systems or even single algorithms/programs are mostly way to complex for a really strict formal approach. moreover to hack and code is way more fun than this dry reasoning, but even so the formal approach must have some value, because otherwise nobody would go this way.

Later on you simply cannot clear the code if it is hackery and badly commented. I have only looked at the bash eclasses: the kernel eclass should be split into multiple, because there are too many purposes fited into this giant one eclass. Just expanding the upstream linux.tar.xz should be fast. But building a new binary kernel is another thing. And for another architecture cross compiling complicates then further ...

Quote:

According to the paludis website, portage is full of spagetti code. if this is true than it's indeed a problem, don't you agree? especially since python is OO and more highlevel than C.

The portage python is strictly python2 compliant. There probably is no real OO of python3.
I think it would be a worthwhile student project to rewrite portage in Python3 manner. You could even look at Paludis source code to accomplish that.

Quote:

n00b question: why is it so hard to just rewrite something like portage in a clean way? -> to big? (I've never looked at portage's source code).

The bad about rewriting programs from scratch:
Over the time there are a full lot of exceptions gone to the old code. Experience of real life that is lost when rewriting. An example how hard it is to catch up with experience that is gone into old code is Kde: From time to time as of now releases of Kde-4.x you can see in the Changelogs: Kde3 feature or Kde3 User experience reimplemented ... Kde surely has learnt its lesson and transitions from Kde-qt-4 to Kde-qt-5 will be smoothly accomplished.
But there is another expample that OO code isn't per se maintainable: Libreoffice! They needed more than a year to clean out german language commented old C++ classes of staroffice. Now libreoffice is using nearly 3 GByte instead of 7 GByte when compiling. And development of libreoffice is accelerating because of lesser and maintainable code ..._________________fun2gen2

Last edited by ulenrich on Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total

Paludis was written by a troll who got kicked out of gentoo for good reason. Guess how much worth his word is to me.

Or was he gone by his own will to accompanie exherbo?

that is wrong, he was kicked and banned

ulenrich wrote:

Now, he is actually discussing on the dev mailing list now and then. And guess what: He often is the only guy to slow down cheap hackery by recurring to strict formalism.

Guess what, he is the guy who is derailing threads, trolling regularly and commenting on stuff he has no say in anyway (such as council vote).
I'd have him banned from bugzilla and all mailing lists as well. But most people are comfortable with trolls on the ML.

ulenrich wrote:

Also:
Paludis is "slower than portage by an order of magnitude, lags behind it in features"
I wonder how much is that, because of the ever growing bash powered eclasses.

Also: Paludis is "slower than portage by an order of magnitude, lags behind it in features"
I wonder how much is that, because of the ever growing bash powered eclasses.

no, dependency calculation.

There have been european sponsored akademical research about dependency calculations. I have read years ago about Debian and openSUSE wanted to introduce the algos into their package management code.
Isn't it the new "libzypp" ebuild in the tree from openSUSE that could be exploited for this purpose?_________________fun2gen2